This case involved a dispute between Binder & Binder, a law firm specializing in Social Security disability claims, and Disability Group, Inc. over the latter's unauthorized use of the 'Binder and Binder' trademark as a keyword in Google AdWords advertising from March to November 2006. Plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, false representation under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under California common law. The court found for the plaintiffs on all claims, determining that they owned the valid registered marks, that defendants used the mark in commerce without consent in a manner likely to cause confusion, and that this resulted in diverted clients. Damages were awarded based on a reasonable estimate of lost fees from the diverted cases, using evidence of retention rates and average case fees.
The case United States v. McIntyre involved the federal government seeking to enjoin a tax return preparer, Nyla McIntyre, and her company from preparing fraudulent tax returns using fabricated Forms 1099-OID to generate improper refund claims. The court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the entry of default, finding that her culpable conduct caused the default, she lacked a meritorious defense, and setting it aside would prejudice the government. On the government's motion for default judgment, the court accepted the complaint's allegations as true, which detailed a scheme of filing false returns claiming millions in refunds, and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting McIntyre from preparing tax returns for others or aiding in the understatement of tax liability under various Internal Revenue Code provisions. The reasoning centered on the severity of the harm, the defendant's knowing participation despite IRS warnings, the recurrent nature of the violations, and the high likelihood of future misconduct given her profession.
This case involves a dispute over damage to a porcelain item shipped interstate from Louisiana to California under an agreement listing an insured value of $32,000. Plaintiff sued in state court alleging fraud, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act exclusively governs such claims. The court granted the motion, holding that the Carmack Amendment completely preempts the state law claims because they arise from the interstate shipping contract and representations on the bill of lading, including those related to insurance coverage. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim under the federal statute.
The case involved Frontline Medical Associates seeking a temporary restraining order and order to show cause for a preliminary injunction to prevent its removal from defendants' medical provider networks in a workers' compensation context. The court denied the application for a TRO, holding that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm as required under Winter v. NRDC. The reasoning focused on the fact that alleged revenue losses and patient volume declines were economic harms compensable by damages at trial, that reputational harm from removal or related allegations would not be prevented by the requested relief, and that claims of harm to patients or public interest lacked supporting evidence.
In this case, a California state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, raising 17 grounds for relief. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the petition was fully unexhausted because the petitioner had not fairly presented his claims to the California Supreme Court in a procedurally proper manner, as evidenced by the state court's summary denials citing procedural deficiencies like those in In re Swain and People v. Duvall. The court noted that the petitioner failed to oppose the motion and that all claims must be exhausted before federal review can proceed.
This case involves a Muslim state prisoner who sued prison officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) after being forced to shave his religiously motivated beard pursuant to then-existing grooming rules. The court considered defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, focusing on whether monetary damages are available under RLUIPA in light of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations except on the damages issue, concluding that RLUIPA's reference to 'appropriate relief' does not clearly and unambiguously waive state immunity from suits for money damages. The opinion examines Supreme Court precedent requiring explicit waiver language and distinguishes RLUIPA from other statutes that have been held to permit damages claims against states.
